[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Snt,—It is to be hoped that all who, like Lord Plumer, believe that existing efforts towards counteracting intemperance can be accelerated, will consider his suggestion to try the effect of consulting those whom he calls " brewers," meaning no doubt the makers and distributors of all intoxicants. They are, of course, interested parties, but they do know their own business and will gladly explain it to disinterested and com- petent enquirers who have not already committed themselves to a hostile view of everything a brewer does.
The Trust house system is one of the ways proposed, and my personal experience of it is most favourable. I hope all questions connected with Trust houses will be thoroughly explored by the recently appointed committee with a view to facilitating the adoption of their many good points, at any rate, by similar houses in similar positions. I hope also to see elucidated by facts the proposition that those who serve intoxicants should have no interest in the profits. To be accurate this can only mean that payment for their services in that respect should be by time and not results. The idea is attractive but, from a business point of view, it presents some difficulties. What concerns a man is his total gain, and when he realised that no one would pay him regular wages to draw beer if there were no demand for beer, his interest in keeping the wages would have the same value in his eyes as a corresponding amount of commission on non- intoxicating drinks.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[We have had to shorten our correspondent's letter, but we fully desire that the brewer's side of this question should have fair and ample consideration.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
